Hacker News Reader

Comment by zapdrive | Hacker News Reader

It's right there in the article. Conclusions are mine, but the allegations are right there.

There is no factual basis to these allegations though. And besides your first sentence and the first half of the second sentence, the rest is completely unsubstantiated. Your comment on feminism and her perspective has no bearing in reality

If the foundation would release the complaint, we wouldn't have to go digging into Fram's history to find the source of this conflict. So don't put this on me. Yes, these allegations could be wrong, but this is as close as we can get to the facts without the foundation releasing the original complaint.

Also, what is your take on this? Why do you think the foundation, that usually only steps in when someone is posting something highly illegal like child porn etc., bypassed the orb committee this time? Why is the complaint being shrouded in secrecy?

There's definitely something funny going on, and this is the only line of reasoning that makes sense to me. But I'm open to other ideas.

FWIW, "release the complaint" could simply mean releasing the details privately to the arbcom, which regularly handles privileged private data under non-disclosure.

I've seen no explanation in the article or in any of the discussion which would justify keeping the arbcom in the dark here. It's quite surprising, but not the first recent incident of WMF doing this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com